Alexander R. Szalkai

This appeal arose from a tragic boat accident involving multiple fatalities and injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed three consolidated appeals: liability of government respondents, interpretation of the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap, and costs.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the boat operators were solely liable for the accident, dismissing the appeal against the government respondents.

It also affirmed that the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap for maritime claims for loss of life or personal injury does not include costs and interest.

While leave to appeal the quantum of costs and the Sanderson Order was denied, leave was granted on one specific costs issue, resulting in both estates being held jointly and severally liable for one plaintiff's costs.

The applicants sought to rectify the title of the respondents' property to reinstate an easement that provided the only access to their landlocked parcel.

The Land Registry Office had inadvertently deleted the easement from the servient tenement's parcel register in 2005.

The Deputy Director of Titles had previously ordered the easement deleted.

The Superior Court, hearing the matter as a new trial under section 26 of the Land Titles Act, found that the easement was deleted in error and could not be extinguished without an express release.

The court ordered the register rectified to reinstate the easement.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment in a fire loss claim, arguing no causal connection could be proven between the fire and their light fixtures.

The plaintiff alleged a design defect in the open luminaires led to a metal halide bulb rupture, igniting a tarp.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on causation, noting conflicting expert evidence and deficiencies in the initial fire investigation due to premature site clearance.

The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but the court directed further oral evidence to be adduced on the causation issue to potentially streamline the lengthy and expensive litigation.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages after a student suffered a brain injury following an altercation with another student during a morning playground game at school.

The claim alleged negligent supervision by the school board, principal, and teachers, inadequate supervision planning, and failure to identify the students as requiring heightened monitoring due to prior behavioural issues and bullying.

The court applied the prudent parent standard under the Education Act and relevant case law governing school supervision.

It found that the school maintained an adequate supervision plan and that supervising teachers were circulating appropriately at the time of the incident.

The altercation occurred suddenly during an otherwise acceptable playground activity and would likely not have been prevented even with additional supervision.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to grant leave to amend their statement of claim to allege malice and substitute a named defendant.

The underlying action against the police defendants had previously been dismissed by another judge, and that dismissal was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that it was now too late to challenge the validity of the original order dismissing the action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.